LETTERS; How to Restrain Soaring College Costs

Published: August 21, 2010

To the Editor:

While Mark C. Taylor's warnings about bloated college tuitions are certainly welcome (''Academic Bankruptcy,'' Op-Ed, Aug. 15), I disagree with his proposed solution.

There are significant dangers in reducing or combining humanities departments. For one thing, there is little common doctrine that would allow combining departments even from neighboring institutions -- the study of philosophy, my own field, is one of the more contentious disciplines.

More problematic, though, is the implication regarding the role that humanities play in a student's education. They are not a mode of job training, but a way of forming thoughtful citizens and individuals, aware of the perils and the promise of ideas. They help develop self-understanding and tolerance.

If we wish to discover the roots of bloated tuitions, we should look instead to the proliferation of administrative staffs and their projects, many of which have little or no connection to the main reason colleges and universities exist: to humanize us.

Timothy Sean Quinn
Cincinnati, Aug. 15, 2010

The writer is a professor of philosophy at Xavier University.

To the Editor:

Mark C. Taylor missed the opportunity to address a whole swatch of four-year private liberal arts and sciences colleges that are affordable. In so doing, his article overstates the case for academic bankruptcy.

To be sure, America's elite institutions of higher learning are offering escalating prices and a stubbornness regarding leveraging resources. But the institution I lead and others like it remain price-conscious, and we are partnering more than ever before.

Our 2010-2011 tuition, room and board total $28,630, and our students graduate with about $30,000 in debt. I appreciate that we are not Columbia or New York University, but the nurses, radiologic technicians, entrepreneurs, social service workers, police officers, corrections officers and psychologists we graduate are employable and contribute meaningfully to American society.

Unfortunately, Professor Taylor demonstrates a common flaw among those employed in elite institutions: failing to see outside their own ivory towers.

Karen Gross
Bennington, Vt., Aug. 15, 2010

The writer is president of Southern Vermont College.

To the Editor:

A significant reason universities spend money in the wrong places is fashion-driven, high-maintenance administrations. Not only are universities ridiculously underfunded, but they are also much too top-heavy.

Though it would not remove the financial strain on colleges and universities, discouraging the practice of hiring professional administrators would surely help. A basic cost-cutting measure would be to rotate all deans, provosts and their associates from within the best faculty. These positions would be obligatory and temporary (three to nine years), and would offer a small salary increase and less teaching. Such administrators would be not only cheaper, but also better because they are more in touch with faculty and student issues.

Only chancellors and presidents, who have responsibility for fund-raising, should be given long-term appointments.

Peter Orland
New York, Aug. 16, 2010

The writer is a professor of physics at Baruch College and the Graduate Center, CUNY.

To the Editor:

As a professor, I agree with Mark C. Taylor's claim, ''Universities should be looking for new ways to provide high-quality education to more students at a lower price.'' But I object to his utilitarian view of college education. Philosophy does not aim to provide vocational training. So the fact that ''there are few jobs for philosophy academics'' has no bearing on whether New York University and Columbia should combine their philosophy departments.

The liberal arts do not aim to raise lifetime income. So when administrators rationalize exorbitant tuition by claiming lifelong financial returns for graduates, Mr. Taylor should offer better criticism than ''with the cost of an undergraduate degree well into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, this argument is no longer persuasive.''

Felicia Nimue Ackerman
Providence, Aug. 15, 2010

The writer is a professor of philosophy at Brown University.

To the Editor:

While Mark C. Taylor eloquently highlights the negative aspect of competition among universities, there are areas where competition can be healthy and productive. Over the last five years, hundreds of universities have been aggressively pursuing campus sustainability improvements. Without competition and peer benchmarking, many of these institutions might have postponed investing in enhanced energy-efficiency standards, better green building practices and other sustainability measures.

Why does this matter? Because significant environmental and financial benefits result when universities compete to achieve carbon emissions reductions. Such practical improvements also reinforce research and teaching about sustainability across the curriculum.

As evidenced by the multimillion-dollar energy costs savings accruing to universities that prioritize energy efficiency, this type of competition is a win-win antidote to academic bankruptcy.

Mark Orlowski
Cambridge, Mass., Aug. 16, 2010

The writer is founder and executive director of the Sustainable Endowments Institute and lead author of the institute's yearly College Sustainability Report Card.